THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH vs. SHRI AMRUTLAL BABALDAS PATEL,, ANKLESHWAR

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Amrutlal Babaldas Patel, Income Tax, Circle-2, Vs I) A/96, Jalkamal Apartment, Bharuch. Near Manav Mandir, Gidc, Ankleshwar, Gujarat – 392002. Ii) 32, Surdhara Bunglow, Near Sai Hospital, Thaltej, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aebpp 2999 E Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Jimit Shah – Ca Revenue By Shri Sita Ram Meena – Sr.Dr 22/02/2022 Date Of Hearing 12/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara Dated 29.04.2016 For The A.Y. 2012-13. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Development Expenses Of Rs.1,79,19,550/- Without Appreciating That The Purported Expenditure Was On Account Of Contractual Payment To Four Related Parties. 1.1 The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating That The Payment Of The Labour Expenses To The Contractors Were Held Up For Three Years Of Sale Of Land & Payment Was Made In The Calendar Year 2015 Only After The A.O. Sought Proof Of Payment. 1.2 The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That Contractors Of The Assessee Have Also Held Up Payment To Their Creditors For A Long Span Of Three Years, Which Is Not Acceptable On Any Surmise. Shri Amrutlal Babaldas Patel

6,78,749/- under section 14A. The assessee apart from the other submissions, submitted that the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 77,500/- from Gujarat Ambuja Cement Co-operative bank and Rs. 120/- from Ankleshwar Nagar Co-operative bank, thus, total income of Rs.77,620/- , which has been shown as taxable income and was included in the total

M/S N. A. SHAIKH,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) M/S N.A. Shaikh, I.T.O., Shop No. 1, Old Shopping Centre, Ward 2(5), Vs. Nr. Pratin Crossing, Gidc, Bharuch. Ankleshwar-393002. Pan No. Aabfn 9617 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The M/s N.A. Shaikh Vs ITO ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has a good case on merit and likely to succeed if the assessee is to be heard and the appeal is to be decided on merit. The ld AR for the assessee submits

ESSAR STEEL LOGESTICS LIMITED,SURAT vs. DY. CIT CIRCLE 1(1))1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.695/Srt/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Essar Steel Logistics Limited, Vs Dy.Commissioner Of 27 Km Hazira, Surat Road, . Income Tax, [Circle- Hazira, Surat. 1(1)(1)], Surat. [Pan: Aadce 3876 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीकीओर से /Assessee By Shri Rajesh Bhanwala – Ca राज"कीओर से /Revenue By Ms. Usha Shrote – Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 24.03.2021 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 25.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat, Hereinafter Referred As “Ld.Cit(A)” Dated 27.08.2018 For The A.Y.2014-15. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law On The Subject, Assessing Officer Has Erred In Making Addition Of Rs.12,45,026/- U/S. 36(1)(Va) On Account Of Employees Pf Contribution. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, Assessing Officer Has Erred In Making Addition Of Rs.86,75,510/- On Account Of Undisclosed Receipt In Case Of Short Claim Of Tds Of Rs.1,73,511/-.

disallowance under section 36(1)(va) as the employee contribution of Employee Provident Fund was made after due date prescribed in the Employee Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The AO also relied upon the order Essar Steel Logistics Limited Vs. DCIT, ITA No.695/SRT/2018 for A.Y.2014-15 of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

AAYUSH HOSPITAL,VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VAPI

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance of various expenses being personal in nature. The assessment was completed on 27.12.2017 under section 143(3) read with section 147. 3. Aggrieved by the addition in the assessment order as well as against the reopening the assessee filed appeal before Ld CIT(A). The ld CIT(A) confirmed the order of assessing officer in ex-parte order

KIRTIKUMAR NAGINDAS SHAH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(6), SURAT

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.535/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Kiritkumar Nagindas Shah, Vs. The Ito, A-1103, Regent Residency, Near Ward – 2(3)(6), Saurabh Society, Pal, Surat Surat – 395009, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anjps9031P (Appellant) (Respondent)

250 3. Dividend income 23 However, you have not furnished any separate account for expenses incurred for earring of exempt income. Hence, section 14 of the I.T. Act attracts in your case. Therefore, you are asked to furnish explanation as to why expenditure incurred of Rs.7,56,965/- for earning exempt income should not be disallowed

DHANSUKHBHAI RAMANBHAI MALI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Dhansukhbhai Ramanbhai The Income Tax Officer, Malli, Ward-2(3)(1), Surat. Vs 10, Mali Faliya, Mota Varachha, Varachha Road, Surat – 395006. Pan: Aqppm 7151 B Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

disallowed the deduction and brought the Long Term Capital Gain(LTCG) of Rs.57,43,86/- as undisclosed LTCG and added the same to the income of the assessee. The AO initiated penalty under section 271(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the additions of undisclosed LTCG, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A).During the pendency of appeal

VAMA INFRA,SURAT vs. DY.CIT CRICLE-2(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.406/Srt/2023 (A.Y. 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Vama Infra Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor Veronaa Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Aayakar Vs Residency, Harikrishna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Campus Vraj Chowk, Surat- 395001 395001 Pan : Aakfv 3593 K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

250(6) of the Act. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that assessee received notice of hearing dated 16.03.2022 for fixing appeal on 30.03.2022 and assessee made request for adjournment unto 14.04.2022 (copy of screen sort of ITBA portal is filed on record). The Ld. AR for the assessee further submits that 2 Vama Infra thereafter, no notice

BEGANI DYEING MILLS PVT.LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE PR.CIT., CIRCLE-1,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.404/Srt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Begani Dyeing Mills Pvt. Vs The Principal Ltd., Commissioner Of Income 11 To 15, Tara Industrial Estate, Tax-1, Surat. Opp. Gangdhi Kutir, Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat – 395007. [Pan: Aaacb 9634 L] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीकीओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah – Ar राज"कीओर से /Revenue By Shri S.T.Bidari – Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2021 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 22.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat-1, Surat Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Pcit” , Passed Under Section 263 Dated 07.12.2018 For The A.Y.2012-13. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Cit Has Erred In Passing The Order U/S . 263 By Invoking Of Section 263 Of The Act, Although The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The I. T. Act, 1961 Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

250/-, thus, total disallowance worked out at Rs.2,35,039/- in assessment order dated 30.01.2015. The case was again reopened under section 147 of the Act on the issue of deduction of section 80IA of the Act. The AO after completing required formality and giving opportunity made disallowance of Rs.3,73,098/- under section 80IA of the Act in assessment

SHYAM CORPORATION,,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) M/S Shyam Corporation, The Deputy Commissioner 39, Vraj Bhumi Township Moje; Of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Vs. Simada Gam Choryasi, Surat. Room No. 612, Aayakar Pan : Abifs 0262 M Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat. Applicant Respondent

disallowed the deduction under section 80IB, by taking view that the assessee’s claimed is found inadmissible. On appeal before ld. CIT(A) the action of the assessing officer was affirmed. The ld CIT(A) confirmed the order of assessing officer in ex-parte order by taking view that despite granting a number of opportunity the assessee failed to comply

SHAUKET HUSSAIN M PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(9), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shaukethussain M Patel, I.T.O., A-504, Sanjay Residency, Ward-1(3)(9), Vs. Causeway Road, Room No. 509, 5Th Floor, Rander, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395009. Surat-395001. Pan No. Artpp 2101 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

disallowed 2 Shaukethussain M PatelVs ITO the long term capital gain by considering the cost of improvement and acquisition at Zero and thereby made huge addition. The ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of assessee by proceeding ex parte by passing a non-speaking order. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that the assessee is a Non-Resident

YAKUB AHMED PATEL,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD-4, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Yakub Ahmed Patel Income Tax Officer A/9 Masum Park, Dungri, Ward-4, Bharuch Vs Sherpura Road, Bharuch-392 001 Patelyakub955@Gmail.Com Ph No.9173386913 Pan Adopp 9317 N Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

6. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and find that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the ex parte order after recording the fact that assessee was given a number of notices and recorded that the conduct of assessee shown that he has not interest in pursuing his appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

JAGDISH LALLUBHAI SHAH,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Jagdish Lallubhai Shah, Income Tax Officer, Ward- 604-B, Bright House, Near 2(3)(7), Vs. Agarawal Samaj Bhawan, Ghod, Room No. 414, 4Th Floor, Dod Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Anavli Surat-395-007 Business Centre, Pan:Adops 3694 R Surat. Applicant Respondent

disallowance under section 14A. On appeal before ld. CIT(A) the action of the assessing officer was affirmed. The ld CIT(A) confirmed the order of assessing officer in ex-parte order by taking view that despite granting a number of opportunity the assessee failed to comply the notices. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal

M/S SEVEN EAGLE PRODUCTION,SURAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Seven Eagle Production, The Assistant 5/6, Paras Shopping Centre, Commissioner Of Income Vs. Near.Gajera Circle, Katargam, Tax, Circle-3(2), Surat. Email:Srshethtax@Gmail.Com Surat – 395004. Pan: Abffs 0860 C Applicant Respondent

disallowances for the want of TDS. The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO by taking view that there is non- compliance on the part of the assessee. We further find that before the AO, the assessee raised factual and legal submission. The ld CIT(A) has not seen and examined such facts and affirmed the action of AO. Before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1)(1), SURAT vs. MANISH SUMATILAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) A.C.I.T., Manish Sumatilal Shah, Circle- 2(1)(1), 401, 4Th Floor, South Ridge Road, Vs. Surat. Mumbai-400006. Pan No. Adrps 1088 E Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

6. We have heard the rival contentions of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue and the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and have perused the orders of the lower authorities carefully. The ld CIT- DR for the revenue submits that during the year under consideration, the assessee has shown

M/S. GLOBAL SYNTEX,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

250(6) of the Act mandates that the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal is required to pass order on various grounds of appeals, decision therein on and reasons for such decision. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal of the assessee is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

6. Aggrieved by the disallowance of diminution as well as on deduction under section 36(1)(viia), the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). On the disallowance of diminution of valueon investment of Rs.5.863 crores, the assessee made similar submission as submitted before the Assessing Officer. In addition to assessee furnished the details of securities; 11 Bharuch Dist

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

6. Aggrieved by the disallowance of diminution as well as on deduction under section 36(1)(viia), the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). On the disallowance of diminution of valueon investment of Rs.5.863 crores, the assessee made similar submission as submitted before the Assessing Officer. In addition to assessee furnished the details of securities; 11 Bharuch Dist

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

6. Aggrieved by the disallowance of diminution as well as on deduction under section 36(1)(viia), the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). On the disallowance of diminution of valueon investment of Rs.5.863 crores, the assessee made similar submission as submitted before the Assessing Officer. In addition to assessee furnished the details of securities; 11 Bharuch Dist

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

6. Aggrieved by the disallowance of diminution as well as on deduction under section 36(1)(viia), the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). On the disallowance of diminution of valueon investment of Rs.5.863 crores, the assessee made similar submission as submitted before the Assessing Officer. In addition to assessee furnished the details of securities; 11 Bharuch Dist